Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/08/1994 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 84 - IMPLEMENT ALASKA 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS Chair Bunde stated that the committee would be working from version U of CSHB 84. Number 055 (See Attachment 1 for Ms. Douglas' prepared statement.) CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President, National Education Association/Alaska (NEA/AK), testified in opposition to HB 84. She stated that some believe that tenure is synonymous with lifetime employment, but she felt it was untrue. It was her belief that the current tenure process protects teachers' academic freedom and protects schools from the spoils of bureaucracy. She said the current tenure system continued to encourage effective teaching and at the same time allowed for dismissal and nonrenewal on the grounds of incompetence, immorality, or failure to comply with school system regulations. MS. DOUGLAS continued by saying that administrators are trained to evaluate and coordinate various resources to develop staff, but there are situations where the administrators do not have the time to address all the needs of others. She stated that weakening tenure would not help administrators do better jobs. She also felt that "creating tenure review committees cannot do this because of lack of money, authority, time, and staff needed to insure a successful staff development and evaluation program. Schools are burdened with too many mandates from the local, state and federal levels. Both the teachers and administrators are expected to do more, but are allocated nothing to accomplish the expectations." She felt the proposal would create new bureaucracy to complicate the evaluation process. MS. DOUGLAS expressed concern, stating that by removing teachers from already overcrowded classrooms to serve on tenure review committees would be costly and would add to the overcrowding problem. She questioned as to whether school districts would be expected to fund the tenure review committee, meetings, in-service training, etc. She also felt that a two-tier tenure system would be confusing and divisive and that litigation could be expected, perhaps resulting in the rise of insurance premiums for the school district. MS. DOUGLAS stated that the problem is not tenure and the public did not believe it to be a problem either, referring to results from a study last year by the DOE. She felt that the system for preparing teachers for the classroom must be improved, that the process used to select teachers for employment should be reviewed, and that the procedure used to evaluate and develop teachers must become a vehicle to empower teachers. Number 275 CHAIR BUNDE expressed his intention to end up with legislation that will serve Alaska teachers in the very best way possible. Number 291 REP. G. DAVIS stated that public perception seemed to be an issue that the committee was dealing with. He said perhaps the public did not see the additional work that has been put on teachers and administrators. He asked Ms. Douglas if she felt that was why the common citizen does not have a grasp of all their duties and that perhaps all the public can see and address is tenure. Number 324 MS. DOUGLAS agreed and said that the public, for the most part, did not understand the demands on both administration and teachers and they tend to personalize tenure if they have had a bad experience with one teacher. She felt that the problem that has given tenure a bad name was that it protected a number of "bad" teachers. Number 376 CHAIR BUNDE stated for the record that he was a very strong supporter of tenure and that he wanted tenure strengthened, not eliminated. CHAIR BUNDE acknowledged Terry Cramer from Legislative Legal Services and offered her expertise to anyone with questions with legal terminology. Number 452 CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB), testified in favor of CSHB 84. He stated that he was unsure of the appropriateness of the legislation towards Alaska 2000 regarding issues of the actual delivery system in education, of governance at state and local levels (who's responsible for what?), and of the funding of education in the future. He felt that these were the critical issues that needed to be discussed. MR. ROSE said that he was concerned that the PTA did not want to be involved in the advisory board process. He stated that the parents viewed education as a very political process and they did not want to be involved in the politics of education. He felt there needed to be systemic change that would address the politics involved that keeps the PTA away from participating. MR. ROSE expressed concerns about tenure. He wanted to speak to the standards set for tenure. He listed the four reasons that allow administration to nonretain, incompetence, immorality, substantial noncompliance, and reduction in enrollment. Under that scenario, he said that he appreciated the language of "deficient performance." He felt that incompetence was more than sufficient reason to remove a teacher, but if the scale were incompetence and excellence, he asked what would be done about substandard or average or below average performance. He asserted that students deserve better. Mr. Rose referred to Terry Cramer when he asked what the language "deficient performance" meant as compared to incompetent. MR. ROSE stated that the inclusion of committees and public access within the proposal indicates change and a considerable amount of money. He indicated that the system, so far, has evolved through the process of "oil money" and in the future the school districts cannot depend on that revenue. He stated that the issue of permanent fund dollars being set aside to fund education and perpetuity does two things: it isolates education as a high priority, and relieves the strain on the general fund for the rest of government. MR. ROSE said these issues are crucial and no one seems to be addressing them. Number 663 CHAIR BUNDE reminded Mr. Rose that the committee substitute (CS) was a distillation of Governor Hickel's bill. He said that he chose the word "deficiency," intending it to be a community standard suggesting local flexibility. However, at this point, Chair Bunde said he was considering changing "deficiency" to "incompetency" because incompetence is defined in statute. Number 710 MR. ROSE felt that the current definition of "incompetence" is inadequate and would not ensure quality in classrooms. He urged Chair Bunde to retain the standard of "deficiency." Number 739 CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony on HB 84. He said that he wanted to amend version U of CSHB 84 to remove Section 1, citing that the CS was "no longer the Alaska 2000 bill that began a year ago. It is a fraction and has become (I will still maintain it is) an attempt to implement some of the Alaska 2000 requests that came originally from the governor." He opened to the committee for discussion the topic of "incompetence" versus "deficient." Number 769 REP. VEZEY said that deficiency is not a high enough standard, citing that mediocre or substandard should be grounds for dismissal. "If your goal is excellence, you have to set high standards and mediocrity may not be good enough to meet that standard." Number 796 CHAIR BUNDE said he understood Rep. Vezey's point. Number 802 REP. TOOHEY made a motion to delete Section 1 of CSHB 84. CHAIR BUNDE, hearing no objection, stated that Section 1, was deleted. He then asked Terry Cramer for the statutory definition of incompetence. Number 810 TERRY CRAMER, Attorney, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Affairs Agency, stated that she had drafted the tenure section of CSHB 84. She listed the reasons, from statute, that a teacher may be nonretained. AS 14.20.175 in statutes reads as follows: "incompetency...which is defined as the inability or the unintentional or intentional failure to perform the teacher's customary teaching duties in a satisfactory manner." Number 833 CHAIR BUNDE said that was below average performance. The enforcement of the definition, he said, lies within the interpretation of the school administration. Number 843 REP. OLBERG shared his solution to the tenure problem. He said that teachers should be graded numerically on performance by a single form used statewide. A teacher would be retained for a 51 or above and would be nonretained at 50 and below. He stated that a definition could not be agreed upon for incompetent or substandard. He continued to say that he has undergone performance reviews that were subjective evaluations with a number attached to it. Number 875 CHAIR BUNDE responded that he would not want to use the same form to evaluate a special education teacher for the handicapped and an advanced honors English teacher. Number 883 REP. OLBERG said he felt that the subject taught made no difference, the standard should be the same for all teachers. Number 909 REP. VEZEY felt that whatever standard is proposed could be litigated and said what was needed was the authority of an administrator to build a competent faculty. Number 929 REP. OLBERG said, "aren't we saying now, if you are not incompetent, you are eligible for tenure?" Number 934 CHAIR BUNDE agreed. Number 935 REP. B. DAVIS said what was just read was the process used to have a teacher removed, not to guarantee tenure. She also gave an example of how she thought tenure could cause problems. She said that perhaps in a small district that has just a few teachers there might rise an occasion where they want to hire on a teacher that has all the qualifications that is required for a position that has been filled for sometime. She said that if there is no just cause, the teacher could not be replaced. Rep. B. Davis continued on to say that of the eight years she served on the school board committee, not one parent came to the school board meeting or talked to her personally about tenure or its removal. Number 012 CHAIR BUNDE stated that it was his feeling that it would be impossible to come up with a form that could grade every teacher in every different school district in the state. He further stated that to be judged by a "jury of your peers" would be a more fair process than to be judged by one person that may have a personal conflict with the teacher being evaluated. Number 068 REP. B. DAVIS related to Chair Bunde that the problem facing the teachers is that they are not trained administrators and have not been trained to evaluate. She also stated that the process could be done by choice at the local level and not be a mandate from the state. She then asked if the school districts would buffer the cost for substitute teachers or would the money be appropriated along with the bill. Number 081 CHAIR BUNDE said that over a year's time the evaluating committee would observe for approximately an hour. He said teachers can recognize excellence in teaching and can recognize incompetence. Number 099 REP. B. DAVIS recommended that Chair Bunde read the copy of a letter sent to the committee from the Anchorage School District. Number 109 REP. G. DAVIS said the committee should include the principal. TAPE 94-11, SIDE A Number 000 REP. G. DAVIS made the committee aware that copies of his proposed amendments were in their bill packets. (See Attachment 2 for the copy of the proposed amendment.) Number 007 CHAIR BUNDE asked if everyone in the audience had a copy. REP. B. DAVIS made a motion to move the amendment. CHAIR BUNDE stated that the amendment had been moved and it was up for discussion. REP. G. DAVIS summarized the intent of the amendment. Page 4, line 16: He felt by reducing the size of the committee that cost would decrease and it would also better address the smaller school districts. Page 4, line 17: Rep. G. Davis said it was a housekeeping measure to reflect the aforementioned change. Number 088 CHAIR BUNDE, in regards to inserting "regular" after "The" on page 4, line 26, said he was unclear as to its intent. Number 101 MS. CRAMER said that she chose to insert that in the draft to ensure it was clear that the members she was speaking of were the appointed members, not members that are added school by school. Number 115 REP. G. DAVIS stated that the following change on page 4, line 26, addressed the makeup of the committee to include the principal and a tenured teacher from the same school that the teacher being evaluated works in. Page 4, lines 27-28: Rep. G. Davis said this section deals with the quorum issue in regards to the change in size of the committee. Page 5, line 1: Rep. G. Davis asserted that the amendment deletes a paragraph that contains the public meeting section. Number 194 MS. CRAMER stated that it deletes the sentence that reads, "the committee shall meet at a time and place that will encourage public participation." Number 198 REP. G. DAVIS expressed concern, stating that the process should not be held open to the public and further stated that it related to the Open Meetings Act as far as the legalities of what needs to be made public and what does not need to be made public. Page 6, line 6: Rep. G. Davis said that the change also related to the public meetings section. Number 247 MS. CRAMER reiterated that it related to public meetings requirements and public records. Number 257 CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Cramer, "on that last amendment, on page 6, line 6... if the local school board disapproves tenure for a teacher, a local board shall set out in writing the reasons for disapproval. Is this what you're talking about? It was my purpose there that the teacher would receive written notification." Number 271 MR. CRAMER said that the particular sentence he read would remain and that the line taken out was "the meeting is closed and documents remain private." Number 281 REP. G. DAVIS continued on by saying that on page 6, lines 14-15, he would suggest to delete "The tenure review committee for a school shall review the performance of each tenured teacher every five years." He said that the deletion would relate to the cost of the activities of the committee. He felt that there need only be one review after five years. He stated that the intent was to eliminate the extended process and cost of the committee. REP. G. DAVIS stated that from page 6, line 15 and on, the term "committee" had been deleted and "reviewer" had been inserted. He said there was concern over the word "reviewer." Number 355 MS. CRAMER interjected by saying that "the policy choice is up to you...what the amendment does now is to leave to a school board to identify who it is that the reviewer would be. If you, as a legislative body, want to say it's the school administrator, we should say so." Number 361 CHAIR BUNDE stated that the amendments would be discussed and voted on individually. He started with the first proposal that would change the committee to five members. Number 384 MS. CRAMER said that what she drafted was "three (members), who are the generic ones and then from a school there is a principal and a teacher. So, there would be for each tenure review five people - the three ongoing members and the two ad hoc members." CHAIR BUNDE said he thought the thrust was to reduce the number of members rather than have three roving members and then a member from the school. He felt whatever the intent was, he did not look favorably upon it. Number 412 REP. G. DAVIS conveyed that his intent was to reduce the overall size to a minimum of three but no more than five. MS. CRAMER said that could be done, but the language, as written, did not accomplish that. Number 421 CHAIR BUNDE stressed that his original intent was to have a majority of teachers and a representative of the school board and a principal. He felt that to have three people, one teacher, one principal, and one school board member, would be to outvote the school teacher and would cause him grave concern. Number 441 REP. G. DAVIS said he did not propose to override a teacher or any member. He felt that Chair Bunde's scenario placed the teachers on the committee in a majority position and he did not agree with that. Number 457 CHAIR BUNDE said that with a majority of members as teachers, a situation of intimidation or influence from the principal would be less likely to exist. Number 481 REP. BRICE referred the proposed change to page 4, line 17, and stated that Chair Bunde's concerns were being addressed by the very language of the proposed change, citing that teachers still are the majority of the committee. Number 525 CHAIR BUNDE felt that there were problems with that section of the amendment, stating that perhaps the drafter and the amender had different goals in mind. Number 546 REP. VEZEY commented that nine members was an unworkable number for a working committee and that eleven was unreasonable. He felt seven to be maximum and five to be the better number of members. (Due to surrounding noise the question asked by Rep. Vezey was inaudible.) Number 563 CHAIR BUNDE said that he was open to discussion on that point. He further stated that he agreed that nine members was too many. He asked that the particular portion of the amendment that addressed the size of the committee be withdrawn and rewritten because the intention was not clear. Number 609 REP. G. DAVIS agreed that nine was too many, but he preferred his own wording of that section. Number 613 REP. BRICE questioned how the wording would impact small, single-site school districts. He added that he agreed with Rep. G. Davis' intent. Number 641 MR. ROSE commented that "the role of the school board member is that of a policy maker not unlike a legislator, they're legislators of their district. And, I think to include them on a tenure committee is to move them into the executive function. And, I don't think that that's what the design is. I appreciate what you're trying to get to, but these elected officials are responsible for all facets of the educational system." REP. BRICE agreed with Mr. Rose. CHAIR BUNDE stated that tenure evaluation for smaller schools would be costlier to evaluate because someone from a neighboring school would have to take part. Number 676 REP. BRICE interjected by asking about a one school district and how the tenure process would work there. Number 680 CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Rose how the bill would impact single- site schools with three teachers. Number 682 MR. ROSE answered by saying that it would place disproportionate value with decision-making. Number 700 CHAIR BUNDE said that he thought there were no single-site schools with less than five teachers. Number 706 MR. ROSE said that there were such schools. He also added that the issue of an administrator and a teacher or the requirement for oversight for a committee in a small site would be difficult to accomplish. Number 722 REP. BRICE asked what the impact would be on the small school if the committee was increased from three to five members. Number 726 MR. ROSE said that in most rural districts, perhaps a district-wide committee would be more suitable. Number 751 REP. VEZEY said that he supported changes that would indicate a committee of three to five members with the majority being tenured teachers and the minority being appointed by the school board. Number 777 CHAIR BUNDE reminded Rep. Vezey of Rep. G. Davis' intent to have a school administrator on the committee and stated that he agreed with that point. He said in order to make the numbers work, school administrators needed to be on the committee and not school board representatives. Number 789 REP. VEZEY said that in the original bill there was no mention of a school board member being on the committee, citing that it said "...the school board will appoint the members of the committee..." Number 804 CHAIR BUNDE said that would be the route he would follow. He further stated that the proposal suggests three to five members to make the committee less cumbersome. He said he was not going to ask for a vote on the proposed amendment, but he and Rep. G. Davis would further discuss the amendment to clean up the language. CHAIR BUNDE stated that he wanted to continue discussions on the issue of further review after tenure has been granted. He said that his original intent was that after five years of tenured teaching, the teacher would be reevaluated (still maintaining tenure until found incompetent). He said there had been previous discussion that there might be a less threatening way to accomplish that. He reiterated that it was a small number of teachers that "burn out" after a period of time. He said the confidence in the teaching profession would be strengthened by a reevaluation after tenure is granted. Number 882 REP. G. DAVIS said it was public perception that viewed tenure as a safeguard from being fired. CHAIR BUNDE thanked all those present. Seeing no further business before the committee, CHAIR BUNDE ADJOURNED the meeting at 4:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|